KD and No Federal Income Taxes in Texas

[Obstructed_View]

Yes, I tried a couple of different apps from within Kodi. 1Channel and Exodus. I've heard many people with FireTV recommending these so I assume that they're dependable.

So you're recommending downloading the movies to a hard drive and then streaming using wifi? I might try that but I'd really like to just be able to pull up a movies while browsing and just play them.
But seems like my internet speed is the limiting factor.

I'm not necessarily recommending it, I just didn't know Kodi was used for anything else. I have about 700 movies in my house, and my DVD jukebox was completely full and I still had movies everywhere. Kids and loose discs is a recipe for disaster, so backing them up to hard drive was the best option for me. I've only done about 400 so far, but I like the Kodi interface. The scraper gets all the movie and actor information for me, and it doesn't require a PC like WMC did. It takes a trick to get Kodi onto a FTVS, but it's not difficult, and it shows up as another app and runs well.

[Chucho]

Some of you really show how insulting stupid you are when you make honest replies to stupid threads like this. You should feel ashamed for being this kinda of stupid. Like Liberal-rhetoric stupid.

[DMC]

Trying to get my campaign traction. Goes back to my statement that too many Texas men are cowards and UNwilling to confront the enemy of the People. The children have no future but more wage slavery. The children of these men will speak of them with shame.

I hope they have better grammar and spelling than you.

[Bartleby]

Clear nail polish works great on chiggers.

No, that's a myth. By the time you start itching they're long gone.

[CaptainLate]

I can't claim to be an expert...I'm guessing you've done neither if you actually believe the you're spouting.

Thank you for your comments, coward. Amazing that you and most of the people in this forum don't even know what being a wage slave means. The "education" system has done a fantastic job. Enjoy your pathetic existence.

[CaptainLate]

I can't claim to be an expert, but I've owned a home for 20 years...

You don't own , bud. Try not paying your property taxes and see if you own your home. What's more pathetic...the fact you accept being a wage slave or that you don't even know it?

[CaptainLate]

So there is no case law and it's based on feelings and repealed law. Gotcha

I told you where to go to be educated. I can't hold the hands of those who wish to remain ignorant.

[CaptainLate]

It must be so liberating to convince yourself that the U.S. Cons ution and long lines of case law are wholly inapplicable to large groups of people who - by accepting admission to the United States - agreed to be bound by all of those things.

And another Sheeple weighs in. "Poor bas !"

[CaptainLate]

i wanted to make fun of this thread, but by page 3 all the best jokes are taken.

Yes, VC, if you believe slavery is funny, then just move along, VC. Nothing to see here.

[CaptainLate]

[QUOTE=Obstructed_View;8642917] I have about 700 movies in my house, and my DVD jukebox was completely full and I still had movies everywhere. Kids and loose discs is a recipe for disaster....QUOTE] That answers that question. No doubt your children appreciate your to free them from a future of following in your footsteps as a wage slave. "As long as I have Olive Garden and Regal Cinema, I'm happy."

[CaptainLate]

Some of you really show how insulting stupid you are when you make honest replies to stupid threads like this. You should feel ashamed for being this kinda of stupid. Like Liberal-rhetoric stupid.

LOL...another candidate for a starring role in the sequel to "Idiocracy".

[FromWayDowntown]

And another Sheeple weighs in. "Poor bas !"

The most compelling responses are those that are directed at the questioner rather than the question.

/bluefont

[cd98]

It is when you don't know what you're talking about. As I stated in the initial post, regardless of whether it is federal or state, people pay income taxes b/c they are either ignorant of the income tax laws or they are cowards. You show yourself to be in the former category. No offense.

Sorry, but I hope people ignore your nonsense. The "brave" people that don't pay federal income tax eventually end up in jail. I've seen it time and again. Law clerks laugh tremendously at the legal briefs you folks file to a court you claim has no jurisdiction before you are whisked away to prison.

[CaptainLate]

The most compelling responses are those that are directed at the questioner rather than the question.

You know, I've heard that as well.

[cd98]

At the time of such negotiations with Texas, Anson Jones was the President of the Republic of Texas, and he transmitted to the convention called by him the joint resolution for annexing Texas, which had been approved by the United States, as above mentioned, on the 1st day of March, 1845. This resolution was approved by the Convention of Texas on July 4, 1845, and as a part of the Texas Convention, a cons ution was framed and adopted. It contained a description of Texas' boundaries, which made the boundary between Mexico and Texas the Rio Grande. Congress approved the cons ution containing such declaration of boundary on December 29, 1845, and soon thereafter, to-wit: on February 19, 1846, President Anson Jones relinquished the executive office to Governor J. Pinckney Henderson, with the statement: 'The Republic of Texas is no more.'

Amaya v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co., 62 F. Supp. 181, 188, 1945 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1942, *17 (D. Tex. 1945)

[cd98]

On December 29, 1845, President James K. Polk signed the joint resolution that "'admitted [the State of Texas] into the Union on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever.'" Ralph H. Brock, "The Republic of Texas is No More": An Answer to the Claim that Texas was Uncons utionally Annexed to the United States, 28 TEX. TECH L. REV. 679, 692 (1997) (quoting Joint Resolution for the Admission of the States of Texas into the Union, H.R.J. Res. 1, 29th Cong., 9 Stat. 108, 108 (1845)). On February 19, 1846, the end of independence and the beginning of statehood for Texas was proclaimed by Dr. Anson Jones, the last president of the Republic of Texas: "The final act in this great drama is now performed. . . . The republic of Texas is no more." Id. at 681 (citation omitted). The legitimacy of Texas's statehood and the enduring power of its admission into the Union was confirmed by the Supreme Court in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700, 726, 19 L. Ed. 227 (1868), overruled on other grounds by Morgan v. United States, 113 U.S. 476, 496, 28 L. Ed. 1044, 5 S. Ct. 588 (1885): [3]

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into a indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States.

Defendants' argument that the Republic of Texas remains an independent, sovereign nation is also entirely unsupported within the international community. Despite their many letters to the United Nations and to other countries, the Republic of Texas has failed to receive any diplomatic recognition or recognition as a sovereign nation. Brock, 28 TEX. TECH L. REV. at 709-10. Despite Defendants' arguments to the contrary, HN1 in 1845, Texas became the 28th states of the United States of America. A consequence of attaining statehood and admission in to the Union is that the Republic of Texas ceased being. Accordingly, Defendants' grounds [4] for dismissal of the Indictment based on the existence and recognition of the Republic of Texas as a sovereign nation are without merit. See McLaren v. United States, Inc., 2 F. Supp. 2d 48, 51 (D.C.D.C 1998) (performing similar analysis to determine that the Republic of Texas no longer exists).

United States v. McLaren, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9577, *2-4, 2001 WL 1910571 (W.D. Tex. June 19, 2001)

[Chucho]

LOL...another candidate for a starring role in the sequel to "Idiocracy".

Sure, sure. Whatever you say there, Bucko. Can't change the fact you are re ed. Go downstairs with your breatheren.

[lilbthebasedgod]

I told you where to go to be educated. I can't hold the hands of those who wish to remain ignorant.

Lol this is what happens when people think they can ignore real education.

Get out if you want to soapbox.

Based on where you get your information not smart enough to claim to educate yourself so maybe you should not advise other people to.

[K...]

On December 29, 1845, President James K. Polk signed the joint resolution that "'admitted [the State of Texas] into the Union on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever.'" Ralph H. Brock, "The Republic of Texas is No More": An Answer to the Claim that Texas was Uncons utionally Annexed to the United States, 28 TEX. TECH L. REV. 679, 692 (1997) (quoting Joint Resolution for the Admission of the States of Texas into the Union, H.R.J. Res. 1, 29th Cong., 9 Stat. 108, 108 (1845)). On February 19, 1846, the end of independence and the beginning of statehood for Texas was proclaimed by Dr. Anson Jones, the last president of the Republic of Texas: "The final act in this great drama is now performed. . . . The republic of Texas is no more." Id. at 681 (citation omitted). The legitimacy of Texas's statehood and the enduring power of its admission into the Union was confirmed by the Supreme Court in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700, 726, 19 L. Ed. 227 (1868), overruled on other grounds by Morgan v. United States, 113 U.S. 476, 496, 28 L. Ed. 1044, 5 S. Ct. 588 (1885): [3]

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into a indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States.

Defendants' argument that the Republic of Texas remains an independent, sovereign nation is also entirely unsupported within the international community. Despite their many letters to the United Nations and to other countries, the Republic of Texas has failed to receive any diplomatic recognition or recognition as a sovereign nation. Brock, 28 TEX. TECH L. REV. at 709-10. Despite Defendants' arguments to the contrary, HN1 in 1845, Texas became the 28th states of the United States of America. A consequence of attaining statehood and admission in to the Union is that the Republic of Texas ceased being. Accordingly, Defendants' grounds [4] for dismissal of the Indictment based on the existence and recognition of the Republic of Texas as a sovereign nation are without merit. See McLaren v. United States, Inc., 2 F. Supp. 2d 48, 51 (D.C.D.C 1998) (performing similar analysis to determine that the Republic of Texas no longer exists).

United States v. McLaren, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9577, *2-4, 2001 WL 1910571 (W.D. Tex. June 19, 2001)

it would be stupid to ask a court to endorse secession. You don't do this with laws. You do it with severance to cooperation. It comes down to whether the US would attack us or aggressively bill us for services. There is virtually no way Texas benefits from seceding, it would really suck, but it is possible. Laws only apply to those people who respect the Union.

[TampaDude]

tax protester gots

[CaptainLate]

tax protester gots

wage slave cowards

[CaptainLate]

it would be stupid to ask a court to endorse secession. You don't do this with laws. You do it with severance to cooperation. It comes down to whether the US would attack us or aggressively bill us for services. There is virtually no way Texas benefits from seceding, it would really suck, but it is possible. Laws only apply to those people who respect the Union.

You don't "ask" a court. You just withdraw consent. As for benefits, You really don't know do you? Let me guess...you're a product of the public fool education system? The US needs Texas more than we need the US and it's $19,000,000,000,000 debt. Watch Mike Church of VeritasRadioNetwork.com for talk radio you won't get from the shills on "conservative" talk radio or Faux News. Better to watch him on YouTube 8-11a Mon-Fri.

[SnakeBoy]

You don't "ask" a court. You just withdraw consent. As for benefits, You really don't know do you? Let me guess...you're a product of the public fool education system? The US needs Texas more than we need the US and it's $19,000,000,000,000 debt. Watch Mike Church of VeritasRadioNetwork.com for talk radio you won't get from the shills on "conservative" talk radio or Faux News. Better to watch him on YouTube 8-11a Mon-Fri.

I tried to listen to your interview on youtube but you're a really boring speaker and I just couldn't take it. Which is odd because normally a crazy person talking about things like the synagogue of satan is quite entertaining.

Well good luck on your congressional run. 63 likes on your facebook page plus the votes you've earned in this thread...dude your almost there.

BTW, why do you sometimes spell your name Landholt and other times you spell it Landholdt?

[Obstructed_View]

No, that's a myth. By the time you start itching they're long gone.

True. Yet, sadly, it's not the most useless piece of advice in this thread.

[Obstructed_View]

That answers that question. No doubt your children appreciate your to free them from a future of following in your footsteps as a wage slave. "As long as I have Olive Garden and Regal Cinema, I'm happy."

says a guy posting on a Sports forum.